New Delhi: With a joint session of Pakistan’s parliament handing over more powers to a caretaker government on Wednesday, July 26, questions are being raised over whether the general elections would be held in October as per the constitutional provisions.Here is a short explainer on why the legislative changes have led to concerns that elections will be delayed and any polls under the ‘empowered’ caretaker government may not be an answer to Pakistan’s chronic political instability.What is the caretaker system of Pakistan?In the run-up to the general elections, some democratically elected governments transition into a ‘caretaker’ mode, wherein their powers are severely limited. In India, a code of conduct is supposed to come into force after the Election Commission announces the poll dates.However, Pakistan is almost unique in institutionalising the practice of appointing non-elected officials to head caretaker governments. Bangladesh had also drawn up guidelines for caretaker governments, but the provision was removed from the constitution.Pakistan has a long history of holding elections under “neutral” candidates, but they have all been highly contentious.In 2012, electoral reforms were introduced, removing the power of the president to appoint a caretaker prime minister or chief minister. The 20th amendment established that if the prime minister and the leader of opposition couldn’t decide on the name of the caretaker prime minister, then the decision would be taken by a parliamentary committee. The committee is made up of equal number of lawmakers from the ruling side and the opposition. However, if the committee also fails to reach a decision, then the Election Commission will take the decision within two days.What were the powers of the caretaker government?As per the Election Act of 2017, the caretaker government had to support the Election Commission in holding the polls, as well as keep the government ticking on a day-to-day basis.It had strict instructions that the caretaker government shall, as per section 230 (1), “restrict itself to activities that are of routine, non-controversial and urgent, in the public interest and reversible by the future government elected after the elections”.Further, section 230 (2) had provisions that the interim government cannot take “major policy decisions except on urgent matters” and neither enter into “major international negotiation with any foreign country or international agency or sign or ratify any international binding instrument except in an exceptional case”.How were the changes unveiled?Earlier this month, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that he will hand over the reins of the government to a caretaker government in August. The move immediately triggered feverish speculation over the identity of the caretaker prime ministers, with the politicking taking place in Dubai and London where the heads of the ruling coalition are camped.There were a slew of reports that claimed that finance minister Ishaq Dar – whose son is married to Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party chief Nawaz Sharif’s daughter – would be the head of the caretaker government.Incidentally, the current Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly is a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) dissident lawmaker, who had been part of 20 PTI members that had joined the opposition in passing a no-confidence motion against then Prime Minister Imran Khan in March 2022. Therefore, the choice for heading the caretaker government would be an exercise for the ruling parties, despite the guidelines on paper.Dar’s name was quickly shot down by the Pakistan People’s Party. Nevertheless, Pakistan came to know about the impending changes to the powers of the caretaker government only from his appearance on a television channel. When asked whether section 230 of the Election Act would be modified, he replied, “To the best of my understanding, yes.”Also read: From Pakistan, a Message for IndiaHow was the amendment passed?The Pakistan government on July 25 proposed 54 amendments to the Election Act, 2017, including upgrading the powers that will allow the caretaker government to take decisions with regard to the economy.But the government was forced to defer the passage of the Bill by a day when both political allies and the opposition claimed at the joint session of parliament that there was a last minute addition to the clause that would enlarge the scope of the powers of the caretaker government to decide on “urgent matters”.Many of the opposing lawmakers pointed out that the new changes were not even discussed in the closed-door meetings of the parliamentary committee on electoral reforms.So ahead of the Wednesday (July 26) meeting, the parliamentary committee met with the government and was able to persuade its allies, with a slightly altered amendment. However, the opposition remained unconvinced.The Express Tribune described the passage of the Bill by a voice vote as a “stunning display of legislative acrobatics” that has re-drawn the lines of political authority in Pakistan.What does the amendment say?Due to the outcry in parliament, Pakistan law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar admitted at the start of the joint sitting of parliament that the amendment had not been discussed during the meeting of the parliamentary committee, but claimed that it was posted on the panel’s WhatsApp group five days earlier.The law minister said that amendment still allows the caretaker government to address “urgent matters”, but has dropped the provision on allowing transfers and promotions, following the strong objections raised earlier on WednesdayThe approved amendment, as per media reports, adds a rider to section 230(2): “Provided that sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply where the caretaker government has to take actions or decisions regarding existing bilateral or multilateral agreements or the projects already initiated under the Public Private Partnership Authority Act, 2017 (VIII of 2017), the Inter-Governmental Commercial Transactions Act, 2022 (XXX of 2022) and the Privatisation Commission Ordinance, 2000 (LII of 2000).”The two sub-sections had outlined the limitations of the powers of the caretaker government.Also read: Pakistan’s Precarious Path: From Hero Worship to Economic DesperationWhat is the official argument for ‘empowering’ the caretaker government?Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) board approved a nine-month standby arrangement for $3 billion, which has since opened more doors to bilateral donors. During the joint session, the Pakistani law minister claimed that giving more powers to the caretaker government would ensure the continuity of measures that were agreed upon with the IMF as the same could not be put in cold storage.Jamaat-I-Islami senator Senator Mushtaq Ahmed claimed that it was regrettable that the IMF was even influencing electoral laws. He described it as a “soft coup”, that put question marks on the conduct of the general elections. Ahmed also articulated that the insidious reason for the amendment might be to delay the elections by extending the term of the caretaker government.Pakistan’s minister for economic affairs, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, dismissed the allegation that it would mean that the caretaker government would remain at the helm for a longer period.He argued that the powers of the caretakers under the re-drafted amendment had been restricted to ongoing multilateral and bilateral projects, and they would not have the mandate to initiate new projects.What has been the reception to the move to a Caretaker government’s ‘empowerment’?In an editorial on Wednesday, The News pointed out that the talk about the name of PML-N’s Ishaq Dar and others had started to gather momentum when the ruling Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition realised that the interim government could be prolonged for than the 60 or 90 days it is supposed to remain.“It is important to note that there is little justification for the whole constitution to be upended for the mere possibility that the interim setup could continue beyond its mandated time,” said the newspaper.The editorial criticised the ruling coalition for going back on its position enshrined in the 2006 Charter of Democracy, which advocated for neutral caretaker governments to conduct elections, by having a politician to head the interim set-up.“A prolonged caretaker setup has no constitutional justification – which is why on the government’s list of things to do at the moment should be: a neutral caretaker setup, and free and fair elections. Everything else falls into place after that,” said the editorial.Writing in the Dawn, Zahid Hussain wrote that two months were not a long period that “policy decisions cannot wait”. “The move also fuels speculation about elections not being held within the stipulated time frame.”Warning that their alignment with the security establishment to dismantle PTI will haunt the political parties, Hussain noted that tainted elections under a partisan caretaker administration will aggravate an already combustible situation.“Unfortunately, the elections, which are supposed to strengthen the democratic process and provide political stability, may result in the country plunging deeper into chaos,” he wrote.Mudassar Rizvi, who has been associated with the watchdog Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen), wrote that the political consequences of this amendment and the delay in holding elections to Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies beyond 90 days “have reinforced the view that efforts are afoot to put together a caretaker dispensation with an aim greater than simply holding the next general elections”.
